PM*. 

MISC. 


’  International  Conciliation 

PRO  PA  TRIA  PER  ORB  IS  CONCORDIAM 

Published  Bi-monthly  by  the 

American  Branch  Association  for  International  Conciliation 

AMERICA  AND  JAPAN 


BY 

GEORGE  TRUMBULL  LADD,  LL.D. 

JUNE,  1908,  No.  7 

American  Branch  of  the  Association  for  International  Conciliation 
Sub-station  84  (501  West  1  1  6th  Street) 

New  York  City 


) 


1 


This  is  the  first  of  a  series  of  brief  but  authoritative 
articles  on  the  common  intellectual,  social  and  com¬ 
mercial  features  in  the  life  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States  and  other  important  countries  of  the  world,  for 
which  arrangements  have  been  made  by  the  Executive 
Committee  of  this  Association. 

Future  documents  will  deal  with  the  South  American 
countries,  with  the  Orient,  with  France,  England, 
Germany,  Italy,  Spain,  Canada  and  Mexico. 

So  far  as  the  editions  of  these  documents  will  per¬ 
mit,  copies  will  be  sent  postpaid,  upon  publication, 
to  those  persons  who  have  made  written  application 
therefor,  and  the  Committee  will  be  glad  to  send 
additional  copies  to  any  names  and  addresses  sug¬ 
gested  by  correspondents,  either  as  being  those  of 
persons  interested  in  the  work  of  the  Association  as  a 
whole,  or  in  the  relations  of  the  United  States  and' 
any  particular  country  or  countries. 

Association  for  International  Conciliation. 

American  Branch, 

Sub-station  84,  New  York. 


AMERICA  AND  JAPAN 


In  the  history  of  intertribal  or  international  inter¬ 
course,  there  are  three  principal  causes  of  irritation, 
bitterness  of  feeling  and  strife.  These  are,  first,  the 
impulsive  movements  or  more  deliberate  invasions  of 
multitudes  that  frankly  seek  to  conquer  the  land  and 
plunder  the  wealth  of  others;  second,  the  jealousies, 
anger  and  other  bad  passions  of  powerful  individuals 
among  the  ruling  classes;  and,  third,  the  less  blame¬ 
worthy  and  indeed,  under  certain  circumstances,  almost 
inevitable  misunderstandings  by  different  nations  of 
each  other’s  motives  and  character.  This  last  cause, 
therefore,  a  more  intimate  and  intelligent  acquaintance 
may  reasonably  be  expected  at  least  in  part  to  remove. 

As  that  complex  and  obscure  thing  which  we  call 
“  civilization  ”  advances,  the  first  two  of  these  three 
causes  become  less  openly  and  powerfully  operative. 
The  “hordes”  of  one  people  no  longer  descend  upon 
the  territory  of  another  people,  stealing,  burning,  mur¬ 
dering  and  committing  even  baser  crimes — unashamed 
to  be  regarded  and  met  in  their  true  character  as  the 
avowed  enemies  of  mankind.  Eunuchs,  mistresses, 
adventurous  promoters,  selfish  and  heartless  mon- 
archs,  and  their  counsellors  or  so-called  statesmen, 
cease  to  figure  so  conspicuously  as  the  real  procurers 
of  a  national  resort  to  arms.  The  obvious  crime  and 
immorality  of  such  a  resort,  in  order  merely  to  satisfy 
ambition,  greed  and  lust,  or  to  gratify  feelings  of  per- 


3 


sonal  resentment  and  revenge,  compels  war  to  masque¬ 
rade  under  a  claim  to  higher  motives  and  more  humane 
methods.  Thus  the  complete  and  final  cure  for  the 
first  two  classes  of  forces  that  work  to  inflame  passion 
and  engender  violence,  requires  of  the  civilized  nations 
themselves  the  loosening  and  the  culture  of  the  moral 
and  religious  forces  that  make  for  good-will  and  for 
peace — each  in  its  own  home-land:  This  work  is  not 
between  nations  but  within  nations.  What  America,  and 
every  other  so-called  Christian  people,  chiefly  needs  in 
order  to  promote  “international  conciliation, ”  is  less 
of  unscrupulous  greed  in  its  own  business,  less  of  per¬ 
sonal  and  selfish  ambition  in  its  own  politics,  more  of 
the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  of  righteousness  in  its  pulpits, 
and  less  of  hypocrisy  in  its  churches. 

The  case  is  not  precisely  the  same,  however,  with 
the  third  class  of  the  causes  of  war  referred  to  above. 
The  cure  for  this,  I  have  said,  is  enlightenment — a 
better  knowledge,  and  so  a  worthier  appreciation  of 
each  other  on  the  part  of  the  nations  of  the  earth. 
In  the  stage  of  ignorance,  those  foreign  peoples  who 
most  differ  from  ourselves — even  if  the  difference  be 
really  rather  superficial  and  relatively  unimportant — 
are  sure  to  seem  “barbarian.”  The  nation,  like  the 
individual  man,  that  looks  or  acts  strange,  is  the  more 
apt  to  become  in  fact  estranged.  Inasmuch  as  it  is  a 
mark  of  friendship,  or  of  friendly  condescension,  to 
explain  one’s  self  when  suspected  of  wrong  and  injuri¬ 
ous  conduct,  the  misunderstood  stranger  the  more 
readily  becomes  the  hated  enemy.  And  then,  when  a 
considerable  course  of  such  misunderstandings,  or  a 
series  of  unexplained  differences  of  views  and  of 
actions  seriously  affects  property  rights  or  national 

4 


4 


pride,  war  follows  as  a  result  that  seems  justifiable  in 
the  eyes  of  both  parties. 

All  that  has  just  been  said  is  particularly  pertinent  as 
touching  the  present  relations  of  Occident  and  Orient, 
of  America  and  Europe  on  the  one  hand  and  of  the 
eastern  peoples  on  the  other  hand.  Recent  events 
have  made  the  present  time  both  critical  and  oppor¬ 
tune,  in  respect  to  this  need  of  mutual  understanding. 
For  the  Russo-Japanese  war,  and  its  sequent  conven¬ 
tions  and  treaties,  has  temporarily  checked,  if  it  has 
not  (as  every  lover  of  the  race,  in  my  judgment, 
ought  to  hope)  permanently  abolished  the  attempts  of 
western  nations  to  dominate  and  exploit  the  eastern 
world.  At  the  same  time,  it  has  stirred  ambitions  and 
hopes — especially  in  China  and  India — which  may 
easily  develop  into  results  that  will  greatly  alter  the 
future  of  human  affairs. 

In  this  important  work,  which  is  an  actual  and 
accomplished  work  of  arousing  the  Orient,  and  a 
would-be  and  hoped-for  work  of  leading  it  out  into  the 
enjoyment  of  some  of  the  more  obvious  advantages  of 
modern  western  civilization,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
Japan  stands  preeminent.  It  is,  therefore,  particularly 
desirable,  in  order  to  avoid  ill-will  and  possible  strife, 
that  Japan  should  be  understood  by  the  western 
peoples.  And  among  them  all,  what  one  can  be  more 
interested  in,  and  obligated  to,  the  careful  cultivation 
of  such  good  understanding  that  leads  to  good-will 
than  is  the  United  States? 

The  impression  which  has  been  fostered  by  such 
writers  as  Mr.  Kipling,  and  even  by  Mr.  Hearn,  as  well 
as  by  many  travellers  and  chance  visitors,  that  Orient 
and  Occident  are  so  radically  different  as  to  make  it 


5 


impossible  for  them  to  understand  each  other,  has 
gone  abroad  widely.  The  impression  is  by  no  means 
wholly  true.  Even  the  aversions,  oppositions  and 
antagonisms  awakened  by  the  British  in  India,  the 
Dutch  in  Java  and  Sumatra,  the  Russians  in  China,  and 
the  Americans  in  the  Philippines,  are  in  each  case 
substantially  the  same  as  those  which  the  other  party 
would  feel,  if  the  relations  were  reversed.  That  it  is 
inconceivable  for  relations  ever  to  be  reversed,  may 
turn  out  on  reflection,  or  even  at  some  time  in  the 
future  on  experience,  to  be  a  mere  product  of  racial 
self-conceit.  It  is  not  yet  proved  that  the  Anglo-Saxons 
or  any  other  European  peoples  are  designed  by  a  retrib¬ 
utive  Providence  to  become  that  “recurrent  curse  of 
mankind,  a  dominant  race.” 

At  all  events,  a  great  deal  of  that  which  can  be  said, 
with  much  impressiveness  and  with  no  little  truth- 
seeming,  of  other  nations  of  the  Far  East,  cannot  be 
said  of  Japan.  For  Japan  has  never  been,  and  is  not 
now,  Oriental ,  as  are  India,  China,  and  Korea.  Its  two 
hundred  and  fifty  years  of  exclusiveness  and  of  isolated 
feudal  development,  as  well  as  certain  racial  character¬ 
istics,  prevented  the  more  purelv  Oriental  type  of 
civilization  from  gaining  supremacy  there.  Indeed, 
up  to  the  time  when  the  warships  of  the  United  States 
under  Commodore  Perry  appeared  off  her  coasts,  the 
political  and  social  constitution  and  habits  of  life  of 
Japan,  in  several  important  respects  resembled  more 
those  of  mediaeval  Europe  than  those  of  the  other 
eastern  nations  of  that  date.  This  contention  could 
be  established,  if  it  were  necessary,  by  a  detailed  exam¬ 
ination  of  the  different  main  factors  entering  into  its 
civilization.  But  the  fact  forms  one  of  the  most 


6 


important  reasons  why  Japan  has  so  rapidly  and  readily 
adopted  and  adapted  the  business  methods  and  modes 
of  procedure,  the  system  of  public  and  professional 
education,  the  instruments  and  technique  of  manufac¬ 
ture,  and  even  the  constitutional  policy  and  legal  forms 
of  Europe  and  America.  Thus,  the  citizen  of  the 
United  States  or  of  Western  Europe,  who  is  prepared 
to  get  below  certain  superficial  differences  and  reach 
down  to  the  more  fundamental  likeness,  may  feel  more 
at  home  in  Japan  than  in  certain  parts  of  Europe  itself  ; 
and  much  more  than  in  Turkey  in  Asia  or,  indeed,  any 
portion  of  the  Near  East.  Even  those  more  subtle 
differences  in  religious,  ethical  and  political  conceptions 
which  still  undoubtedly  influence,  or  even  dominate, 
the  Japanese  mind,  are,  in  most  cases,  not  difficult  for 
the  psychologist  or  the  student  of  history  to  recognize 
in  himself  or  in  his  ancestors. 

I  am  glad  then  to  testify  out  of  a  full  and  long 
experience,  that  just  as  intelligent,  self-respecting  and 
mutually  respecting,  and  permanent  friendships  may 
exist  betweenindividual  Japanese  and  individual  Ameri¬ 
cans  as  between  any  two  classes  of  individuals  within 
either  of  the  two  nations.  But  much  more  than  this  is 
true,  or,  rather,  the  same  thing  is  true  as  between  the 
two  nations  at  large.  On  the  whole,  and  until  the  most 
recent  times,  thefeelingof  the  Japanese  people  toward 
the  United  States  has  been  one  of  warm  friendship, 
and  even  of  admiration  and  enthusiastic  good-will. 
This  feeling  on  their  part  has  contained,  indeed,  a 
considerable  mixture  of  gratitude  and  other  elements 
that  are  not  likely  to  endure;  but  in  union  with  these 
there  has  always  been  something  more  permanently  and 
deeply  interfused.  This  has  been  an  apprehension — 


r 


at  first  rather  dim  but  becoming  clearer  as  the  future 
relations  of  the  two  nations  have  defined  themselves  in 
thought  and  in  fact — of  a  certain  community  of  intel¬ 
lectual,  social  and  commercial  interests  between  them, 
the  welfare  of  which  requires  peace,  and  the  marring, 
if  not  the  total  destruction,  of  which  would  come  about 
through  alienation  and  war. 

I  have  said  that  friendly  feeling  toward  the  United 
States  has  hitherto  been  widespread  and  popular  in 
Japan.  This  fact  is  a  convincing  witness  to  the  admira¬ 
ble  chivalric  nature  of  the  more  intelligent  and  high- 
class  Japanese.  Count  Okuma  once  said  to  me  that 
he  regarded  Commodore  Perry  as  the  “  best  friend 
Japan  ever  had,” — among  foreigners,  of  course.  Every¬ 
where  that  I  went  during  the  years  of  1906-1907,  the 
flags  of  the  two  countries  were  hung  together,  over 
the  gates  of  the  school-yards  and  of  private  residences, 
over  welcome-arches  and  in  banqueting  halls.  At 
Hikone  it  was  taken  for  granted  that  we,  as  Americans, 
would  be  interested  in  the  relics  of  Count  Ii,  who  lost 
his  life  because  he  signed  the  Treaty  with  Townsend 
Harris;  at  Ikegami,  that  we  would  look  reverently  upon 
the  tomb  of  the  wrecked  American  sailors,  whose 
bodies  the  good  monks  rescued  and  buried  two  gen¬ 
erations  ago.  And  yet  let  us  remember  that,  in  the 
words  of  Prince  Ito,  “the  treaties  which  had  been 
concluded  with  the  Western  Powers  were  not  made  at 
the  instance  of  Japan',  and,  therefore,  the  chief  pro¬ 
visions  were  not  reciprocal,  especially  so  with  regard 
to  jurisdiction  and  tariff.” 

It  is  in  these  last  words,  I  am  sure,  that  we  find  the 
hidden  explanation  of  much  liability  to  misunderstand¬ 
ing  and  ill-will  between  Occident  and  Orient,  and, 


8 


more  especially,  between  America  and  Japan.  We  led 
the  western  nations  in  forcing  Japan  to  admit  us  and 
them  to  residence  and  to  trade.  We  joined  Europe  in 
framing  and  maintaining  treaties  that  were  not  “  recip¬ 
rocal  with  regard  to  jurisdiction  and  tariff.”  And  now 
that  Japan  has  succeeded  in  vindicating  and  gaining 
the  full  right  to  a  place  beside  us,  in  the  rank  of  the 
leading  nations  of  the  civilized  world,  we  find  it  hard 
to  understand  and  sympathize  with  her  people,  in 
terms  of  a  strict  reciprocity — “especially  so  with 
regard  to  jurisdiction  and  tariff.”  But  with  Japan,  as 
much  as,  and  perhaps  even  more  than,  with  any  of  the 
other  nations,  i liter  national  conciliation  depends  upon  an 
attitude  of  mind  and  a  course  of  conduct  dictated  by  moral 
and  prudential  considerations  that  are  reciprocal. 

Under  this  principle  of  reciprocity,  the  bonds  which 
should  bind  America  and  Japan  together  are  peculiarly 
strong  and  tenacious.  Every  year  the  intellectual 
development  and  growth  in  educational  interests  of 
the  two  countries  is  binding  them  more  firmly  together. 
Thousands  of  Japanese  youth  have  come  to  the  United 
States  to  study,  in  all  sorts  of  institutions,  every  kind 
of  subject;  they  have  gone  back  to  the  home-country 
with  lasting  feelings  of  respect  and  affection  for  their 
American  teachers  and  fellow-pupils.  Hundreds  of 
American  men  and  women  have  gone  to  Japan  to  teach* 
thousands  of  Japanese  youth  there;  and  if  the  number 
of  foreign  teachers  has  of  late  been  greatly  diminished, 
— as,  indeed,  it  should  have  been — still  the  pupils  are 
not  unmindful  of  what  these  foreign  teachers  have 
already  done  for  them.  (For  myself,  I  can  testify  that 
no  other  class  of  students  are,  as  a  rule,  so  appreciative 
and  so  grateful  as  the  Japanese.)  Thousands  of  books 


9 


by  American  authors  are  disseminating  in  Japan  the 
science,  literature  and  philosophy  with  which  our  own 
publishers  are  making  us  familiar  at  home.  And  what 
is  more  important,  the  ideas  and  instructions  of  these 
living  voices  and  printed  pages  are  falling  into  much 
more  receptive,  and,  in  turn,  productive,  soil  in  this 
than  in  any  other  oriental  country.  No  one  can 
become  familiar  with  not  only  the  missionary  schools 
but  also  with  the  government  elementary  schools, 
without  being  impressed  with  the  similarity,  and  in 
important  respects  the  identity,  of  the  popular  educa¬ 
tion  in  America  and  in  Japan.  Whereas,  there  is  no 
such  similarity  when  we  turn  to  the  cases  of  India, 
China  and  Korea — the  last,  irrespective  of  the  begin¬ 
ning  which  the  Japanese  have  made  there. 

The  social  differences  between  the  United  States 
and  all  Oriental  countries,  including  Japan,  are  indeed 
most  impressive  to  the  ordinary  traveller,  or  to  the 
superficial  traveller,  when  away  from  the  capitals  and 
the  principal  ports.  But  these  differences,  which  were 
not  so  important  in  Japan  as  in  other  parts  of  the 
Orient  previous  to  its  opening,  are,  year  by  year, 
becoming  less  formidable  in  the  way  of  producing 
misunderstanding,  and  of  interfering  with  efforts  at 
concidation  whenever  misunderstanding  arises.  At  the 
very  moment,  for  example,  that  writers  like  Mr.  Millard 
are  creating  prejudice  by  exaggerating  the  undemo¬ 
cratic  character  of  the  Japanese  government,  the  latter 
is  modifying  the  conditions  of  suffrage  so  as  to  double 
the  number  of  voters.  The  status  of  woman,  which  has 
never  in  Japan  been  upon  the  ordinarily  low  oriental 
level,  has  been  raised  by  wise  laws  and  improvements 
in  education,  so  that  it  now  compares  favorably  with 


IO 


that  in  most  countries  of  Europe.  Many  of  the  material 
advantages  of  modern  civilization  are  even  more  widely 
distributed  in  Japan  than  they  are  in  the  United  States. 
Newspapers  are  circulated  by  the  thousands  in  the 
smaller  villages  and  towns.  As  soon  as  the  poverty  of 
the  nation  and  the  diminution  of  the  war-debt  will  per¬ 
mit,  the  enactment  of  legal  restrictions  will  compel 
what  the  feeling  of  fraternal  sympathy  is  now  accom¬ 
plishing  in  many  cases — namely,  the  amelioration  of 
the  physical  condition  of  factory  laborers,  especially  of 
the  women  and  children.  As  to  all  the  greater  crimes, 
Japan  is  safer  both  for  life  and  for  property  than  is 
the  United  States  to-day.  And,  with  one  exception,  it 
is  not  inferior  in  respect  of  those  vices  that  are  less 
easily  guarded  against  by  law.  The  men  selected  for 
diplomatic  and  consular  service  are  more  carefully 
trained  and  more  cautious  about  giving  needless 
offense  to  foreign  nations  than  are  our  men  in  similar 
positions. 

There  is  one  particular  that  should  be  mentioned  in 
a  more  emphatic  way.  The  attempt  has  been  made — 
it  is  to  be  feared,  for  selfish  political  purposes  —  to 
create  the  impression  that  Japan  is  distinctively  a 
military  nation,  bound  to  go  to  war  about  once  in  so 
often  and  meantime  “spoiling  for  a  fight.”  During 
its  feudal  period  there  was  indeed  much  fighting  among 
the  feudal  lords,  until  the  great  Iyeyasu  brought  them 
all  under  the  control  of  the  Shogunate.  But,  with  the 
exception  of  the  invasion  of  Korea  by  Hideyoshi,  Japan 
has  never  entered  upon  a  war  of  conquest.  To  quote 
again  from  Prince  Ito:  “  Japan’s  military  reform  was 
executed  mainly  for  defensive  purposes,  and  not  from 
any  desire  for  expansion.”  Indeed,  it  has  several 


1 1 


times,  in  the  case  of  Korea,  refrained  under  great  temp¬ 
tation  from  a  punitive  war.  Those  foreigners  who  know 
best  the  government  and  the  people  are  confident  to-day 
that  the  nation  desires  peace,  and  will  use  all  possible 
morally  right  means  to  secure  peace. 

It  is  doubtless  when  we  come  to  speak  of  the  present 
and  future  commercial  relations  of  America  and  Japan 
that  we  are  upon  the  most  dangerous  ground.  Un¬ 
doubtedly,  Japan  intends  to  secure  a  large  economical 
development,  both  in  the  form  of  internal  agriculture 
and  manufactures  and  also  of  foreign  commerce.  This 
is  her  right  and  her  necessity;  a  right  that  must,  how¬ 
ever,  be  guided  by  law  and  ethics,  and  a  necessity  that 
is  enforced  by  the  war  debt  and  by  her  rapidly  increasing 
population.  Undoubtedly,  also,  her  position  geograph¬ 
ically  and  the  present  character  of  her  population  give 
her  certain  considerable  advantages  over  other  nations 
in  the  rivalries  of  trade  in  the  Far  East.  The  rivalries 
of  trade  are  therefore  sure  to  influence  the  attitudes 
toward  each  other  of  America  and  Japan  in  the  near, 
and  perhaps  even  more  in  the  more  distant,  future.  It 
will  be  impossible  to  show  that  the  merely  commercial 
interests  of  the  two  countries  are  identical.  So  that  in 
both  of  them  it  is  now,  and  it  will  continue  to  be,  the 
ambitious  members  of  the  military  class  and  the  greedy 
and  unscrupulous  members  of  the  business  classes,  who 
will  most  need  to  be  watched  and  to  be  checked  in  order 
to  keep  relations  of  peace  and  friendship  between  the 
two  nations. 

It  is  easy  to  argue  that,  in  the  long  run,  war  is  the 
enemy  of  the  successful  economical  development  of 
mankind.  It  is  more  difficult  to  show  that,  in  particular 
cases,  neither  of  the  two  nations  who  war  with  each 


12 


other  is  economically  benefited  in  this  way.  It  is 
impossible  to  prove  that  certain  individuals  and  cor¬ 
porations  which  aim  to  control,  and  actually  do  control 
politics,  are  not  made  rich  through  the  wars,  increasing 
taxation  and  poverty  of  their  own  and  other  peoples. 
Wherefore,  we  must  always  fall  back  upon  the  moral 
and  religious  influences  in  order  to  effect  international 
conciliation,  when  the  commercial  interests  of  individ¬ 
uals  or  peoples  are  at  stake.  In  my  judgment,  our 
treatment  of  this  interest  may  be  brief  and  must  be 
thorough.  Here,  then,  is  one  perfectly  clear  and 
unchanging  moral  and  religious  principle.  Neither  the 
protection  nor  the  advancement  of  a?iy  merely  commercial 
rivalry  can  ever  afford  a  moral  justification  for  war. 
And  when  Christian  nations  enter  upon  war  for  the 
sake  of  any  such  interest,  they  make  a  mockery  of  the 
name  they  profess. 

At  present,  it  is  plainly  inexpedient  for  both  nations 
that  America  and  Japan  should  weaken,  not  to  say 
destroy,  the  bonds  of  friendship  which  have  bound 
them  together  from  the  beginning  of  their  international 
intercourse  until  now.  In  the  future,  only  grossly 
immoral  behavior  on  the  part  of  one  or  both  of  these 
two  nations  is  likely  to  loosen  or  dissolve  these  bonds. 
Mutual  understanding,  reciprocal  forbearance,  genuine 
and  intelligent  sympathy,  should  then  be  a  sufficient 
conciliator.  And,  surely,  America  has  not  managed  her 
own  railroads  so  justly  and  wisely  as  to  be  able  to  throw 
stones  or  dust  in  the  face  of  Japan  in  respect  of  her 
management  of  the  Manchurian  Railway.  Obviously, 
our  own  tariff  regulations  are  not  so  fair  and  generous 
toward  other  nations  as  to  enable  us  to  act  as  severe 
critics  of  the  tariffs  regulated  by  Japan,  now  that  she 


13 


has  at  last  gained  the  right  to  control  in  this  respect 
her  own  territory.  Let  us  rather  heal  ourselves;  and, 
meantime,  let  us  hope  that  the  prediction  of  her  own 
statesman,  whose  views  have  already  been  quoted,  and 
than  whom  no  one  knows  his  country  better  or  has 
done  more  to  shape  her  internal  and  her  foreign  policy, 
will  come  true:  “Japan  will  continue  more  and  more 
to  feel  the  consciousness  of  her  responsibility  which 
has  been  made  so  great;  and,  not  inconsistently  with 
the  determination,  she  will  endeavor  to  contribute 
toward  the  maintenance  of  peace  and  the  general  wel¬ 
fare  of  the  world  at  large  .  .  .  She  will  continue 

to  follow  the  common  path  of  the  world’s  civilization 
and  to  share  the  benefits  of  its  fruits  with  other 
countries.  ” 

One  of  the  chief  benefits  in  the  interests  of  inter¬ 
national  conciliation,  which  may  be  expected  to  come 
from  arbitration,  is  just  this:  It  affords  opportunity 
for  arriving  at  a  mutual  understanding  that  is  likely  to 
be  more  complete  because  it  is  deliberate,  and  more  in 
accordance  with  justice  because  it  is  mediated  through 
disinterested  parties.  The  particular  and  pressing 
dangers  to  continued  good-will  and  peace  between  the 
United  States  and  Japan  at  the  present  time  arise  from 
the  selfish  and  unscrupulous  greed  of  the  commercial 
classes.  There  is  evidence  that  a  part  of  our  own 
press  is  being  subsidized,  and  its  Far  Eastern  corre¬ 
spondents  “instructed  ”  to  use  every  means,  not  except¬ 
ing  the  circulation  of  misinformation  and  falsehood,  in 
the  support  of  the  rivalries  of  trade  and  commerce  in 
that  portion  of  the  world.  But  courts  of  arbitration 
are  customarily  composed  of  men,  in  part  at  least,  who 
do  not  regard  the  success  or  failure  of  private  schemes 


14 


for  “promotion”  and  “exploitation”  as  belonging  to 
the  choicest  interests  or  most  invulnerable  rights  of 
mankind.  For  these  reasons  among  others,  there¬ 
fore,  the  friends  of  peace  may  properly  rejoice  and 
take  courage  at  the  prospect  of  the  conclusion  of  a 
general  arbitration  treaty  between  the  United  States 
and  Japan. 


GEORGE  TRUMBULL  LADD 


COUNCIL  OF  DIRECTION  FOR  THE  AMERICAN  BRANCH 
OF  THE  ASSOCIATION  FOR  INTERNATIONAL 

CONCILIATION 


* 


Lyman  Abbott,  New  York, 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Boston. 

Edwin  A.  Alderman,  Charlottesville,  Va. 
Charles  H.  Ames.  Boston,  Mass. 

Richard  Bartholdt.  M.  C.,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 
Clifton  R.  Breckenridge,  Fort  Smith,  Arkansas. 
William  J.  Bryan,  Lincoln,  Neb. 

T.  E.  Burton,  M.  C.,  Cleveland,  Ohio. 

Nicholas  Murray  Butler,  New  York. 

Andrew  Carnegie,  New  York. 

Edward  Cary,  New  York. 

Joseph  H.  Choate,  New  York. 

Richard  H.  Dana,  Boston,  Mass. 

Arthur  L.  Dasher,  Macon,  Ga. 

Horace  E.  Deming,  New  York. 

Charles  W.  Eliot,  Cambridge,  Mass. 

John  W.  Foster,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Richard  Watson  Gilder,  New  York. 

John  Arthur  Greene,  New  York. 

James  M.  Greenwood,  Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Franklin  H.  Head,  Chicago,  III. 

William  J.  Holland,  Pittsburgh,  Pa. 

Hamilton  Holt,  New  York. 

James  L.  Houghtaling,  Chicago,  III. 

David  Star  Jordan,  Stanford  University,  Cal. 
Edmond  Kelly,  New  York. 

Adolph  Lewisohn,  New  York. 

Seth  Low,  New  York. 

Clarence  H.  Mackay,  New  York, 

W.  A.  Mahony,  Columbus,  Ohio. 

Brander  Matthews,  New  York. 

W.  W.  Morrow,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 

George  B.  McClellan,  Mayor  of  New  York. 
Levi  P.  Morton,  New  York. 

Silas  McBee,  New  York. 

Simon  Newcomb,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Stephen  H.  Olin,  New  York. 

A.  V.  V.  Raymond,  Schenectady,  N.  Y. 

Ira  Remsen,  Baltimore,  Md. 

James  Ford  Rhodes,  Boston,  Mass. 

Howard  J.  Rogers,  Albany,  N.  Y. 

Elihu  Root,  Washington,  D.  C. 

J.  G.  Schukman,  Ithaca,  N.  Y. 

Isaac  N.  Sei.igman,  New  York. 

F.  J.  V.  Skiff,  Chicago,  III. 

William  M.  Sloane,  New  York. 

Albert  K.  Smiley,  Lake  Mohonk,  N.  Y. 

James  Speyer,  New  York. 

Oscar  S.  Straus,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Mrs.  Mary  Wood  Swift,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
George  W.  Taylor,  M.  C.,  Demopolis,  Ala. 

O.  H.  Tittman,  Washington,  D.  C. 

W.  H.  Tolman,  New  York. 

Benjamin  Trueblood,  Boston,  Mass. 

Edward  Tuck,  Paris,  France. 

William  D.  Wheelwright,  Portland,  Ore. 
Andrew  D.  White,  Ithaca,  N.  Y. 


